The Road

Time Out says

3 out of 5 stars

Details

Users say
(136)

2 out of 5 stars

Time Out says

3 out of 5 stars

When Cormac McCarthy’s brutal saga of post-apocalyptic angst won the Pulitzer Prize in 2007, a big screen adaptation became inevitable. Whether or not this was a good idea seemed irrelevant: it was a bestselling book with a timely, inherently cinematic theme; the movie had to be made.

‘The Proposition’ director John Hillcoat’s film is as direct and unflinching an adaptation as one could reasonably hope for. A man (Viggo Mortensen) and a boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) wander the American wasteland after an unnamed ecological disaster. The trees are bare, the animals dead, the few human survivors starving, desperate, often violent, occasionally monstrous.‘The Road’ is certainly the bleakest and potentially the least commercial product in recent Hollywood history. Both book and movie suffer from the same inherent weakness – they exist purely to make you miserable. Sure, there’s a smattering of subtext – a little eco-politics here, a spot of family psychology there – but the central purpose is to break your heart and shatter your soul.

On which level, Hillcoat’s movie is a resounding triumph. Stunning landscape photography sets the melancholy mood, and Nick Cave’s wrenching score reinforces it. But it is the performances that ultimately hold the film together. We expect this kind of selfless professionalism from Mortensen, and McPhee is appropriately sad-eyed as his long-suffering son, but it’s the incidental characters who steal the show, notably Robert Duvall in a startling cameo which not only distils the film’s key themes into a single three-minute scene, but singlehandedly lifts a potentially drab affair into something quietly impressive. Just don’t expect to walk out smiling.

Beautiful visually and a treasure for that
Unrelentingly Hobbesian world depicted but the right questions about that suggested
The product placement was a real spoiler. Everything was biege gray except the Coca Cola can and the Del Monte can. Shameful!
Scenes that introduced some action seemed to have walked in from another movie. Unconvincing
But lots of pleasure all the same. Mortensen brilliant but Therize miscast. She just does not do wretched. She is too glamorous. Not beautiful. Glamorous
Real joy is in Mortensen, the music, the art, the photography and the existentialist script.
Nice ambiguity about the family at the end who might be going to eat the child.

Beautiful visually and a treasure for that
Unrelentingly Hobbesian world depicted but the right questions about that suggested
The product placement was a real spoiler. Everything was biege gray except the Coca Cola can and the Del Monte can. Shameful!
Scenes that introduced some action seemed to have walked in from another movie. Unconvincing
But lots of pleasure all the same. Mortensen brilliant but Therize miscast. She just does not do wretched. She is too glamorous. Not beautiful. Glamorous
Real joy is in Mortensen, the music, the art, the photography and the existentialist script.
Nice ambiguity about the family at the end who might be going to eat the child.

Of course we can use our imagination. I could've used my own imagination and imagined a much better story than this crap and not wasted my time watching it. If I were to imagine what caused the apocalypse of this movie, I could think of hundreds, likewise I could think of hundreds of possibilities of what happened after the end of the movie. The family could have truly been nice, took the kid in and they could've survived long enough for his kids to see a rebirth, or his dad might have been paranoid for a good reason, they might have taken him behind the next bush and slaughtered him. Such a wide range of possibilities is not for the purpose of "leaving it to your imagination" it is simply lazy writing. A well written story might not spell everything out for the viewer, but it doesn't leave holes this big either. A well crafted story would give clues and leave the viewer to come up with a list of finite possible conclusions, not an infinite scope of which the viewer might as well have crafted their own story from rather than trying to add this pointless piece into it. There is no point to trying to combine the viewers visions and the authors vision when it is this wide open. Doing so would be guaranteed to be apocryphal anyway.

Of course we can use our imagination. I could've used my own imagination and imagined a much better story than this crap and not wasted my time watching it. If I were to imagine what caused the apocalypse of this movie, I could think of hundreds, likewise I could think of hundreds of possibilities of what happened after the end of the movie. The family could have truly been nice, took the kid in and they could've survived long enough for his kids to see a rebirth, or his dad might have been paranoid for a good reason, they might have taken him behind the next bush and slaughtered him. Such a wide range of possibilities is not for the purpose of "leaving it to your imagination" it is simply lazy writing. A well written story might not spell everything out for the viewer, but it doesn't leave holes this big either. A well crafted story would give clues and leave the viewer to come up with a list of finite possible conclusions, not an infinite scope of which the viewer might as well have crafted their own story from rather than trying to add this pointless piece into it. There is no point to trying to combine the viewers visions and the authors vision when it is this wide open. Doing so would be guaranteed to be apocryphal anyway.

abraham. issac. pre history post apocalypse. whats the difference. biblical. not as good as the book.
the kid was rubbish, the script was rubbish, the tone was wrong, the poetry of the book missing...as a film i dont know, but very important....you want to know what happened? what hapened to the world at the beggining of the bible? its a question.

abraham. issac. pre history post apocalypse. whats the difference. biblical. not as good as the book.
the kid was rubbish, the script was rubbish, the tone was wrong, the poetry of the book missing...as a film i dont know, but very important....you want to know what happened? what hapened to the world at the beggining of the bible? its a question.

Just watched "The road" and feel it is my duty and obligation to try to prevent anyone who reads this from watching the most utterly depressing unredemptive empty inhumane waste of time that I can remember witnessing in quite some time, the road leads to an empty dead end alley on a nauseating journey you wish you hadn't taken to begin with...ugh...I need a shower... (sigh) ...a scene would have made a good coca cola and vitamin water commercial in it... Shameless product placement...lol

Just watched "The road" and feel it is my duty and obligation to try to prevent anyone who reads this from watching the most utterly depressing unredemptive empty inhumane waste of time that I can remember witnessing in quite some time, the road leads to an empty dead end alley on a nauseating journey you wish you hadn't taken to begin with...ugh...I need a shower... (sigh) ...a scene would have made a good coca cola and vitamin water commercial in it... Shameless product placement...lol

Why the big commotion about the thief being caught and stripped of his belongings? As the father said, "I'm leaving you exactly as you left us" (with nothing).
There are glimmers of hope in the film. The family at the end. The green bugs near the coast (so there is life out there besides the remaining humans). For those that like it all laid on the table - tough - you'll have to fill in the gaps. We don't need to know why or how the apocalypse happened. The characters probably don't know, so why should we?
It just occurred to me that the family that was following them all along were heard above the shelter. I remember the child saying he heard a dog. Perhaps they had survived so well because that was their hideout, or at least they had taken some of the food. If one was aware of an impending catastrophic event, wouldn't you stock up a bomb-proof hideout in your garden?
I liked the film. Bleak, slow but thought provoking, which is how it intends to be. I can't help but think those rating the film poorly missed the point.

Why the big commotion about the thief being caught and stripped of his belongings? As the father said, "I'm leaving you exactly as you left us" (with nothing).
There are glimmers of hope in the film. The family at the end. The green bugs near the coast (so there is life out there besides the remaining humans). For those that like it all laid on the table - tough - you'll have to fill in the gaps. We don't need to know why or how the apocalypse happened. The characters probably don't know, so why should we?
It just occurred to me that the family that was following them all along were heard above the shelter. I remember the child saying he heard a dog. Perhaps they had survived so well because that was their hideout, or at least they had taken some of the food. If one was aware of an impending catastrophic event, wouldn't you stock up a bomb-proof hideout in your garden?
I liked the film. Bleak, slow but thought provoking, which is how it intends to be. I can't help but think those rating the film poorly missed the point.

However 'well' written, acted, directed, produced, this film is, frankly, sick. It sets out to revolt and disgust, which it succeeds in doing. You'd get more pleasure from 113 minutes in a public toilet.

However 'well' written, acted, directed, produced, this film is, frankly, sick. It sets out to revolt and disgust, which it succeeds in doing. You'd get more pleasure from 113 minutes in a public toilet.

This was a gripping film but could have done with some improvement ( the unbelievable child who seems to have forgotten that this is all he has known) but i think the acting of the main (Viggo Mortensen) is done amazingly and the paranoia of a world where he can trust no one comes across. worth a watch but you properly wouldn't need to watch it all the way through to enjoy it.

This was a gripping film but could have done with some improvement ( the unbelievable child who seems to have forgotten that this is all he has known) but i think the acting of the main (Viggo Mortensen) is done amazingly and the paranoia of a world where he can trust no one comes across. worth a watch but you properly wouldn't need to watch it all the way through to enjoy it.

PS under "normal" circumstances parents abandon kids all the time or kill them for little or no reason ... and if you really think ur child is going to be torchured what would you really do to save them? And if you could not, would you save them from that misery by humanly killing them? ie we put pets "down" to save them from normal misery

PS under "normal" circumstances parents abandon kids all the time or kill them for little or no reason ... and if you really think ur child is going to be torchured what would you really do to save them? And if you could not, would you save them from that misery by humanly killing them? ie we put pets "down" to save them from normal misery

I have to add my 2 cents.
The dog at the end survived, because the family the boy meets represents a sort of civility and possibly a return to a normal pre-disaster way of life-- at least in their minds. While everyone else was eating their pets, this family chose to take a "path of good". Also, the dog might be new to the group as well, and, when he arrived, the family was no longer in a
tribal community (as implied by the father's missing
thumb).
Anyway... The whole movie is about the kid showing compassion and mercy to others-- regardless. From what others have said, this is an interpretation of a biblical story in which God helps the boy.
I don't know for sure, but it makes sense.

I have to add my 2 cents.
The dog at the end survived, because the family the boy meets represents a sort of civility and possibly a return to a normal pre-disaster way of life-- at least in their minds. While everyone else was eating their pets, this family chose to take a "path of good". Also, the dog might be new to the group as well, and, when he arrived, the family was no longer in a
tribal community (as implied by the father's missing
thumb).
Anyway... The whole movie is about the kid showing compassion and mercy to others-- regardless. From what others have said, this is an interpretation of a biblical story in which God helps the boy.
I don't know for sure, but it makes sense.

I can sympathise with those reviewers who found the film depressing but is it over-sentimental? Also the ending was an issue. Some people have argued that it is highly unlikely that a starving family would still have a dog - however i ask you. could you eat your pet dog, and if a canibal tried to eat your pet dog would you not fight tooth and nail to save it? Additionally I don't feel the need to know what has happened to the world - if the film explained this it could become one of those scince-fiction type films like the day after tomorrow. There are loads of films like ththat which focus on big budget action sequences and it is quiet refreshing anf thought provoking to have a film that focuses on the human sie of the situationation by looking at the relationship betwen a man and is son.

I can sympathise with those reviewers who found the film depressing but is it over-sentimental? Also the ending was an issue. Some people have argued that it is highly unlikely that a starving family would still have a dog - however i ask you. could you eat your pet dog, and if a canibal tried to eat your pet dog would you not fight tooth and nail to save it? Additionally I don't feel the need to know what has happened to the world - if the film explained this it could become one of those scince-fiction type films like the day after tomorrow. There are loads of films like ththat which focus on big budget action sequences and it is quiet refreshing anf thought provoking to have a film that focuses on the human sie of the situationation by looking at the relationship betwen a man and is son.

The minute you said "I know films as i'm doing video production" you started talking out of your backside. I play football but i'm not Ronaldo. Superb film, probably a bit deep for the Toy Story brigade on here (F.1.00008 Take note)-

The minute you said "I know films as i'm doing video production" you started talking out of your backside. I play football but i'm not Ronaldo. Superb film, probably a bit deep for the Toy Story brigade on here (F.1.00008 Take note)-

Having now seen the film i can say that it is not quite as good as the book and the adaptation does remove a lot of the tension and some of the books best scenes but it still remains a staggeringly beautiful, well shot and excellently acted film. The charecter of the father is not idiotic, he is a fallible man like most of us and misguided in whathe has to do to remain good in this world. the whole point of the narrative is that hes wrong to fear everyone in the world and at the end we are offered a little sliver of hope. there really would be no point if it ended when he died as it is his death frees the son to live andtrust in his own way, rather than carrying the fire in his fathers way alone. i still find the 1 star reveiws mystifying. The disaster remains unexplained as do their lives before the disaster allowing us to engage our imaginations and speculate about this for ourselves, its the chief strength of both movie and novel. So its not onefor those who want to be spoonfed or crave neat endings or require explanation to satisfy them, but its still a beautiful spare human tale about a father son relationship in a world gone to hell. Its difficult but i cant understnd the lack of sophistication in some reveiwers hee who seem to want evryoneto be unfallible, heroic and always right. how mny people are like that in real life? i would still however much i like the film urge anyone who did enjoy i to read the book however as it really is a modern classic. i wish the filmmakers had just followed it a bit more closely, although that would mean een more walkng searching for food and circularity. Thir life is a grind. Its survival. many people are forcedto live in a similar way when they become refugees in war zones and many of them dont understand what caused their situation to be so bleak either. I originally red it wen travelling through an extremly poor african country and it really did reflect what i saw going on around me in a very profound way. Cormac cCarthy's genius is to take what is happening to large numbers of peopl around the world every day and to find a way to relate that back to America. For theese reasons i still think the story in whatever format you take it in is one of the singlemost important tales in modern fiction.

Having now seen the film i can say that it is not quite as good as the book and the adaptation does remove a lot of the tension and some of the books best scenes but it still remains a staggeringly beautiful, well shot and excellently acted film. The charecter of the father is not idiotic, he is a fallible man like most of us and misguided in whathe has to do to remain good in this world. the whole point of the narrative is that hes wrong to fear everyone in the world and at the end we are offered a little sliver of hope. there really would be no point if it ended when he died as it is his death frees the son to live andtrust in his own way, rather than carrying the fire in his fathers way alone. i still find the 1 star reveiws mystifying. The disaster remains unexplained as do their lives before the disaster allowing us to engage our imaginations and speculate about this for ourselves, its the chief strength of both movie and novel. So its not onefor those who want to be spoonfed or crave neat endings or require explanation to satisfy them, but its still a beautiful spare human tale about a father son relationship in a world gone to hell. Its difficult but i cant understnd the lack of sophistication in some reveiwers hee who seem to want evryoneto be unfallible, heroic and always right. how mny people are like that in real life? i would still however much i like the film urge anyone who did enjoy i to read the book however as it really is a modern classic. i wish the filmmakers had just followed it a bit more closely, although that would mean een more walkng searching for food and circularity. Thir life is a grind. Its survival. many people are forcedto live in a similar way when they become refugees in war zones and many of them dont understand what caused their situation to be so bleak either. I originally red it wen travelling through an extremly poor african country and it really did reflect what i saw going on around me in a very profound way. Cormac cCarthy's genius is to take what is happening to large numbers of peopl around the world every day and to find a way to relate that back to America. For theese reasons i still think the story in whatever format you take it in is one of the singlemost important tales in modern fiction.

I just don't see why people review other reviews? Some clown here says if you don't like it watch Transformers, I hate that action shit thats all computerised. I just look for a film that doesn't bore Me, all that happens in this film is walking, eating, sleeping and a man showing his son how to shoot himself. Sorry to disappoint people but I just give My honest opinion and if you want to call Me an idiot when you don't even know Me then do that. Crap film. End of!

I just don't see why people review other reviews? Some clown here says if you don't like it watch Transformers, I hate that action shit thats all computerised. I just look for a film that doesn't bore Me, all that happens in this film is walking, eating, sleeping and a man showing his son how to shoot himself. Sorry to disappoint people but I just give My honest opinion and if you want to call Me an idiot when you don't even know Me then do that. Crap film. End of!

This film wasn't as good nor as bad as I had anticipated. The movie, at its core, focused on the existential heroes embarking upon a hopeless journey through a naturalistic world. The world was violent, barren and devoid of hope,, yet these characters continued to carry the fire. (Both metaphysical fire and physical fire were important to the central theme. Physical fire kept them alive physically and metaphysical fire kept them fighting on. ) The only part that i felt was disappointing in the film was the ending. papa dies and everything is better when the boy meets the family? how does this union make everything better? is this a physical manifestation of hope? or a reward for constant perseverance? maybe they will be eaten by zombie-like cannibal or live happily ever after? i wish that the movie just ended with the death of the father

This film wasn't as good nor as bad as I had anticipated. The movie, at its core, focused on the existential heroes embarking upon a hopeless journey through a naturalistic world. The world was violent, barren and devoid of hope,, yet these characters continued to carry the fire. (Both metaphysical fire and physical fire were important to the central theme. Physical fire kept them alive physically and metaphysical fire kept them fighting on. ) The only part that i felt was disappointing in the film was the ending. papa dies and everything is better when the boy meets the family? how does this union make everything better? is this a physical manifestation of hope? or a reward for constant perseverance? maybe they will be eaten by zombie-like cannibal or live happily ever after? i wish that the movie just ended with the death of the father

Sure, the movie *excels* at projecting a barren, desolate, hopeless life of a father and son, but it is a very static and slow movie without much of a story line.
It basically consists of two interchanging scenes which repeat multiple times over the course of two hours.
On one scene, the father and his boy go around traveling in empty roads and sleeping in deserted cars while having occasional memories from which the father will suddenly wake up from in a jerky and annoying fashion. And on the other scene, they witness psychopath gangs which are out to kill them and other people in a putrid and bloody fashion.
These two scenes pretty much interchange and repeat in cycles, but it is done in such way that there is no progress whatsoever.
Rarely, the father and son will encounter another homeless person, and so you get your hopes up that the movie is actually going somewhere, but over and over again, the movie brings your hopes up and lets you down, as the they part ways and nothing is resolved. Then the movie keeps on interchanging the two scenes just like before.
For starters, it seems the whole world is destroyed, but from the very beginning of the movie, it is never revealed what caused the world disaster, or how the father and his kid survived it...and I don't know about you, but if the whole world was destroyed, I'd like to know HOW.
Worst of all, the movie is shot in a really cruddy way. During many scenes, the camera was zoomed way into the characters' faces as to avoid filming the natural sky and surroundings--- but when they do show you the surroundings, it becomes obvious that they are using a special filter to make the green-and-blue scenery look less colorful (black and white, almost) and to tone down any sunlight being captured in the filming process. It's really poor quality special effects. There was a part or two where the filmmakers "made a boo-boo" since you could clearly see sunshine! (and there was not supposed to be any in the so-called post-apocalyptic scenery). It was clearly being toned down to make the scene look more stark, and it was not easy on the eyes, and poorly executed.
The final straw watching this movie is that after two hours of patiently tolerating two repeating scenes, no progress in story line, and poor camera filters, the ending that you wait breathlessly for turns out to make no sense whatsoever. Supposedly a group composed of a woman, a man, two children and a dog (a dog?! come on!) show up out of nowhere *right on time* after the boy's father dies and claim that they have been following them "all along". But that's ridiculous. In reality, they would have caught up to them immediately and robbed them of their food for their own survival!
What a disappointment! I wasted two hours of my life burning my eyes in a state of anxiety, but you don't have to. Pass this movie up, it's a waste of your time and not interesting or worthwhile whatsoever.

Sure, the movie *excels* at projecting a barren, desolate, hopeless life of a father and son, but it is a very static and slow movie without much of a story line.
It basically consists of two interchanging scenes which repeat multiple times over the course of two hours.
On one scene, the father and his boy go around traveling in empty roads and sleeping in deserted cars while having occasional memories from which the father will suddenly wake up from in a jerky and annoying fashion. And on the other scene, they witness psychopath gangs which are out to kill them and other people in a putrid and bloody fashion.
These two scenes pretty much interchange and repeat in cycles, but it is done in such way that there is no progress whatsoever.
Rarely, the father and son will encounter another homeless person, and so you get your hopes up that the movie is actually going somewhere, but over and over again, the movie brings your hopes up and lets you down, as the they part ways and nothing is resolved. Then the movie keeps on interchanging the two scenes just like before.
For starters, it seems the whole world is destroyed, but from the very beginning of the movie, it is never revealed what caused the world disaster, or how the father and his kid survived it...and I don't know about you, but if the whole world was destroyed, I'd like to know HOW.
Worst of all, the movie is shot in a really cruddy way. During many scenes, the camera was zoomed way into the characters' faces as to avoid filming the natural sky and surroundings--- but when they do show you the surroundings, it becomes obvious that they are using a special filter to make the green-and-blue scenery look less colorful (black and white, almost) and to tone down any sunlight being captured in the filming process. It's really poor quality special effects. There was a part or two where the filmmakers "made a boo-boo" since you could clearly see sunshine! (and there was not supposed to be any in the so-called post-apocalyptic scenery). It was clearly being toned down to make the scene look more stark, and it was not easy on the eyes, and poorly executed.
The final straw watching this movie is that after two hours of patiently tolerating two repeating scenes, no progress in story line, and poor camera filters, the ending that you wait breathlessly for turns out to make no sense whatsoever. Supposedly a group composed of a woman, a man, two children and a dog (a dog?! come on!) show up out of nowhere *right on time* after the boy's father dies and claim that they have been following them "all along". But that's ridiculous. In reality, they would have caught up to them immediately and robbed them of their food for their own survival!
What a disappointment! I wasted two hours of my life burning my eyes in a state of anxiety, but you don't have to. Pass this movie up, it's a waste of your time and not interesting or worthwhile whatsoever.

"The Road" movie is composed of two interchanging scenes which repeat multiple times over the course of two hours.
Basically, on one scene the father and his boy go around traveling in empty roads and sleeping in deserted cars while having occasional memories from which the father will suddenly wake up from in a jerky and annoying fashion, and on the other scene, they witness psychopath gangs which are out to kill them and other people in a putrid and bloody fashion.
Rarely, the father and son will encounter another homeless person, and so you get your hopes up that the movie is actually going somewhere, but over and over again, the movie brings your hopes up and lets you down, as they part ways and nothing is resolved. After an event like this, the two interchanging scenes continue interchanging once more, just like they were 30 minutes ago.....50 minutes ago.... you get the point. You could start watching the movie five minutes before the end and would not be able to tell the move is almost over.
It drags along, goes nowhere and ends in a remarkably idiotic manner which, from watching the whole movie with anxious eyes, makes no sense whatsoever.
For starters, it seems the whole world is destroyed, but from the very beginning, the movie does not bother to show you HOW the world was supposedly torn up, or how the father and his kid survived such an event. Worst of all, the movie is shot in a really cruddy way, zooming in overly close up into the characters faces as to avoid filming the natural sky and surroundings--- but when they do show you the surroundings, it becomes obvious that they are using a special filter to make the scenery look less colorful and to tone down any sunlight being captured in the filming process. It's really poor quality special effects.
The father is the most idiotic character you could imagine. He does the dumbest things, like leaving his kid alone in obviously dangerous situations, forces a guy to strip naked in front of his kid, and at one point, cocks a gun at his own kid's head (on-skin contact) while the little kid whimpers and cries incoherently before the people-eating people come.
The whole movie is a worse than a lemon, no--worse than a fiasco, no--it was a piece of shit. I will never get back those two hours of my life wasted on this limp lazy reel.

"The Road" movie is composed of two interchanging scenes which repeat multiple times over the course of two hours.
Basically, on one scene the father and his boy go around traveling in empty roads and sleeping in deserted cars while having occasional memories from which the father will suddenly wake up from in a jerky and annoying fashion, and on the other scene, they witness psychopath gangs which are out to kill them and other people in a putrid and bloody fashion.
Rarely, the father and son will encounter another homeless person, and so you get your hopes up that the movie is actually going somewhere, but over and over again, the movie brings your hopes up and lets you down, as they part ways and nothing is resolved. After an event like this, the two interchanging scenes continue interchanging once more, just like they were 30 minutes ago.....50 minutes ago.... you get the point. You could start watching the movie five minutes before the end and would not be able to tell the move is almost over.
It drags along, goes nowhere and ends in a remarkably idiotic manner which, from watching the whole movie with anxious eyes, makes no sense whatsoever.
For starters, it seems the whole world is destroyed, but from the very beginning, the movie does not bother to show you HOW the world was supposedly torn up, or how the father and his kid survived such an event. Worst of all, the movie is shot in a really cruddy way, zooming in overly close up into the characters faces as to avoid filming the natural sky and surroundings--- but when they do show you the surroundings, it becomes obvious that they are using a special filter to make the scenery look less colorful and to tone down any sunlight being captured in the filming process. It's really poor quality special effects.
The father is the most idiotic character you could imagine. He does the dumbest things, like leaving his kid alone in obviously dangerous situations, forces a guy to strip naked in front of his kid, and at one point, cocks a gun at his own kid's head (on-skin contact) while the little kid whimpers and cries incoherently before the people-eating people come.
The whole movie is a worse than a lemon, no--worse than a fiasco, no--it was a piece of shit. I will never get back those two hours of my life wasted on this limp lazy reel.

That's ok I know its just film discussion! But a Parents motto is 'I'll do everything to protect My Child(ren). I really wanted to like this film giving the plot. I don't mind a film being depressing as I'm open minded on the movie scale, but this was like sitting through Cricket. Some people like it some don't.

That's ok I know its just film discussion! But a Parents motto is 'I'll do everything to protect My Child(ren). I really wanted to like this film giving the plot. I don't mind a film being depressing as I'm open minded on the movie scale, but this was like sitting through Cricket. Some people like it some don't.

There are no zombies in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and I have life experience having lost both My Parents. 2012 wasn't fun it was a stupid film. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I was bored out of my brain watching this, I can see why it got no Oscars. Although No Country For Old Men too was boring and that was nominated. I thought the film had hope when they were chased at the start, but it didn't follow up. You said its all about survival, that's what the hobo was doing and the child didn't want to punish him. A film doesn't need to be action packed, but not boring either. He did actually leave the ring on the bridge. Would a Mother leave her son like that? I know films as I'm doing Video Production so I'm not talking out of my backside though!

There are no zombies in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and I have life experience having lost both My Parents. 2012 wasn't fun it was a stupid film. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I was bored out of my brain watching this, I can see why it got no Oscars. Although No Country For Old Men too was boring and that was nominated. I thought the film had hope when they were chased at the start, but it didn't follow up. You said its all about survival, that's what the hobo was doing and the child didn't want to punish him. A film doesn't need to be action packed, but not boring either. He did actually leave the ring on the bridge. Would a Mother leave her son like that? I know films as I'm doing Video Production so I'm not talking out of my backside though!

This comment is for Thomas Noctor. Would u rather see yr child be slowly butchered & limbs amputated to eat by cannibals or would u show him a quick & easy way to not have to suffer such a fate? I have kids & definately would choose the latter. Pople are mentioning 2012 because that was a movie ALSO about the Apocolypse but actually managed to make it look like good fun rather than the harrowing event which I'd bet it wud be as portayed inThe Road. Like I said u dont have much life experience. Firstly he didn't throw away the wedding ring, he threw her picture. This was his way of emoting his anger at his wife on walking out on them but he didn't throw the ring because he knew he did love her for all the time they were together & didnt throw the ring over the bridge but just left it there. The hobo stripping? Set against the situation they were in seeing a naked body was no big deal for the boy, also this showed how his focus and purpose in life was to keep his son alive & if that meant robbing someone's clothes then so be it. Viggo had no other function left in life than survival, & t any cost. The evil gang scenes? This wasn't a movie about just surviving zombies like some sort of texas chainsaw massacre movie, it was about survival full stop.By the terrible ending I suppose u mean the boy going off with this family against what his father had taught him? 2 things. Firstly since everyone who didnt like this movie because it was too blek & depressing this ending provided a bit of hope & secondly it showed regardless of what his father taught him deep down the boy still believed in the good in people & went with this in the end. This is what was portrayed througought this movie. Keeping the human spirit alive(the boy) & losing all hope in humanity(the father) Hence are u keeping the fire burning?

This comment is for Thomas Noctor. Would u rather see yr child be slowly butchered & limbs amputated to eat by cannibals or would u show him a quick & easy way to not have to suffer such a fate? I have kids & definately would choose the latter. Pople are mentioning 2012 because that was a movie ALSO about the Apocolypse but actually managed to make it look like good fun rather than the harrowing event which I'd bet it wud be as portayed inThe Road. Like I said u dont have much life experience. Firstly he didn't throw away the wedding ring, he threw her picture. This was his way of emoting his anger at his wife on walking out on them but he didn't throw the ring because he knew he did love her for all the time they were together & didnt throw the ring over the bridge but just left it there. The hobo stripping? Set against the situation they were in seeing a naked body was no big deal for the boy, also this showed how his focus and purpose in life was to keep his son alive & if that meant robbing someone's clothes then so be it. Viggo had no other function left in life than survival, & t any cost. The evil gang scenes? This wasn't a movie about just surviving zombies like some sort of texas chainsaw massacre movie, it was about survival full stop.By the terrible ending I suppose u mean the boy going off with this family against what his father had taught him? 2 things. Firstly since everyone who didnt like this movie because it was too blek & depressing this ending provided a bit of hope & secondly it showed regardless of what his father taught him deep down the boy still believed in the good in people & went with this in the end. This is what was portrayed througought this movie. Keeping the human spirit alive(the boy) & losing all hope in humanity(the father) Hence are u keeping the fire burning?

They walk, they eat, they sleep, this cycle continues for two boring hours! Why are reviewers bringing 2012 into this? Is it because of the end of the world? Or is it because they both have good actors in terrible films? Ok I'm 26, I've only lived a short time, but great parenting, showing your 'beloved' son how to commit suicide! Or making a hobo strip naked infront of your son! Why throw away his Wedding Ring? As for the terrible ending? How this made it into cinema is beyond me! The evil gang were in it for what? Three scenes? Oh boy how any one could like this thrash is beyond me!

They walk, they eat, they sleep, this cycle continues for two boring hours! Why are reviewers bringing 2012 into this? Is it because of the end of the world? Or is it because they both have good actors in terrible films? Ok I'm 26, I've only lived a short time, but great parenting, showing your 'beloved' son how to commit suicide! Or making a hobo strip naked infront of your son! Why throw away his Wedding Ring? As for the terrible ending? How this made it into cinema is beyond me! The evil gang were in it for what? Three scenes? Oh boy how any one could like this thrash is beyond me!

I would be interested to know the ages of the people who gave this movie a 1 star rating. Because I'm certain any person who has life experience & a deeper understanding of the human condition totally gets the power of this amazing movie. Its the only explanation I can come up with for people giving this a 1 star rating. Unless of course they were expecting a 2012 style special effects laden non-realistic movie. The movie was totally gripping, heartbreaking, frighteneing, breathtaking & profoundly moving. What where the OSCARS thinking. This shd have wiped the floor with the OSCARS. Honestly one of the most powerful & emotional movies I've ever seen.

I would be interested to know the ages of the people who gave this movie a 1 star rating. Because I'm certain any person who has life experience & a deeper understanding of the human condition totally gets the power of this amazing movie. Its the only explanation I can come up with for people giving this a 1 star rating. Unless of course they were expecting a 2012 style special effects laden non-realistic movie. The movie was totally gripping, heartbreaking, frighteneing, breathtaking & profoundly moving. What where the OSCARS thinking. This shd have wiped the floor with the OSCARS. Honestly one of the most powerful & emotional movies I've ever seen.

This film has to be the most atrocious film I have seen in a long while. I like odd and different films and I don't have the concentration span of a housefly so can get on fine without action but this film was actually terrible. If I didn't snore I would have tried to go to sleep to wile away the two hours of my life this film wasted.
I thought parts of the plot made no sense at all, to start with if someone can think of anything that can destroy all life on Earth apart from people I'd like to know what it is. The fact the child, who the film likes to point out with those tedious flashbacks was born after the event, at one moment knows plenty about the 'old world' and the next he can't say 'shampoo'. Product placement, I've only seem more product placement in adverts.
All in all this film was the most boring, uncomfortable and depressing two hours of my life.

This film has to be the most atrocious film I have seen in a long while. I like odd and different films and I don't have the concentration span of a housefly so can get on fine without action but this film was actually terrible. If I didn't snore I would have tried to go to sleep to wile away the two hours of my life this film wasted.
I thought parts of the plot made no sense at all, to start with if someone can think of anything that can destroy all life on Earth apart from people I'd like to know what it is. The fact the child, who the film likes to point out with those tedious flashbacks was born after the event, at one moment knows plenty about the 'old world' and the next he can't say 'shampoo'. Product placement, I've only seem more product placement in adverts.
All in all this film was the most boring, uncomfortable and depressing two hours of my life.